P L D 1959 W (PLP)
ABDUL GHAFOOR‑Petitioner Versus SHAH MOHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFOOR‑Petitioner Versus SHAH MOHAMMAD‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 W (PLP) (ABDUL GHAFOOR‑Petitioner Versus SHAH MOHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Siddiq for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardari‑Candidate figuring as an accused in Ss. 325, 342, P. P. C. case which was compromised‑Not by itself a handicap in appointment as Lambardar.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner is the eldest son of the deceased Lambardar. The Commissioner interfered with the Collector's decision for the following two reasons :‑ (1) The petitioner's holding was only 4 acres. The record did not show the average price per acre, so that it could not be said for certain that the land was sufficient as a security for the Government demand, (2) The petitioner had once been prosecuted under section 325/342, P. P. C. and was acquitted on the basis of compromise. Regarding argument No. (1), the Collector's file clearly showed that the value of the land was more than the annual Government demand of the estate. Regarding argument No. (2), there is no legal authority for thinking that where a serious offence is compromised under the law, the complainant must be assumed to have received com pensation in cash for the injury which he had received. The composition leads to an acquittal and the acquittal cannot be restricted in its effect by any unjustified considerations. I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution of the petitioner, referred to above, cannot be held as a handicap against him at this stage, especially as it has not been shown or admitted that he was really to blame for the offences for which he was prosecuted. Lal Din's counsel adds another argument against the petitioner, viz., he is a Rajput whereas the majority of the holders of land in the estate are Gujjars. The Collector's file shows that in this estate there are 38 Gujjars holding 254 acres whereas there are only 30 Rajputs holding 156 acres. In my opinion, the above argument is not a sufficient justi fication for interfering with the selection made by the Collector. The two arguments which were advanced by the Commissioner have already been held to be fallacious. In the above circumstances, I accept this petition for revision and direct that the petitioner Abdur Ghafur should be restored to his Lambardari appointment. The Commissioner had remanded the case and it appears that the Collector has in the meantime appointed Lal Din as Lambardar. Thus, the effect of my order will be that Abdul Ghafur will replace Lal Din as Lambardar. A. H. Petition accepted.